How do you know to confirm the above?It is possible there was no rain on that day.

The above is most objective if we get a confirmation from a qualified weatherman who rely on Science and other advance knowledge.However whatever objective facts the weatherman confirm, it is intersubjective as subjected to the Framework, System, Machinery, principles of weather forecasting.Thus the objective conclusion of the qualified weatherman is intersubjective, i.e. ultimately subjective.

In addition, August 3rd 1992 is very subjective depending on which Nation's or international time which can be very variable.

In addition, "raining" is also very subjective, depending on whether how we define 'rain' from light rain, heavy mist or thunderstorm, etc. How do you measure the limit of lightness of water falling down to be considered rain? Is it one drop of water, two drops, three or how many drops or liters of water before it is considered to be raining.

As you can see your supposedly "objective" statement is full of subjective variables which is consolidated and concluded by intersubjectively.

That is why I claim what is objective is ultimately and fundamentally subjective, i.e. intersubjective.

Your insistence to cling tenuously to objectivity alone for facts is due to a desperate internal psychology driven by an existential crisis.

Project much? You're trying to deceive, but as you stated for me, it's probably just ignorance.

You're using the infinite regress of perceptual acuity defense.

I actually have a definition for rain! Lol!

It's when the area underneath all the trees is soaked.

You have a definition for rain?

Aren't you a subject and that what is a definition is etymological which is based on intersubjective consensus.Note, for example one definition of 'gay' = homosexuality, and that is an objective definition, but surely you understand it was invented by subjects and intersubjectively agreed upon, thus subjective.The above etymological is the same for all definitions and meanings, i.e. ultimately subjective.You cannot separate objectivity from subjectivity.

So here's the deal, perceptual acuity is extremely important to objectivity !

Let's say I put a microscope on the tree?

It won't look even remotely like a tree!

Let's say I stand back 40 miles, it will not only not look like a tree, I won't be able to see it.

For ALL phenomenon, the sweet spot of perceptual acuity, the middle way, is what creates perception of objects as we name them.

The various perspectives to what is a "tree" is already indicative of whatever objective is subjective, i.e. subject to the various perspectives of the subjects.That sweet spot is dependent on the human brain of the majority, thus what is objective is ultimately subjective, i.e. intersubjective.

For you, it's only subjective because we're standing on the exact atom that gives an optical illusion, where we see it perfectly as a tree still, but if we change our perspective it no longer looks like a tree either.

We have optical illusions like that as well, the one with the old hag and the young woman comes to mind.

At a certain perspective of perceptual acuity, a tree is definitely a tree, so stating the infinite regress of objects problem in that context, is a straw man.

Note if I and some others were born with atomic vision only, then those who claimed a tree has roots, trunks and green leaves, I would insist they are seeing an illusion.

To a virus, the virus will not perceive an objective tree as perceived by humans. It is the same with all other non-human entities. Thus what is objective to human beings are subjective and relative to different living perceptive entities. Thus there is no permanence but rather relative cognitions, i.e. effectively subjective.

The only permanence is "change" i.e. change is the only constant, i.e. objective, but that is only apparent. When delve deeper, the ultimate of change is still subjective.

I don't deny relative objectivity but it is always subjected/qualified to various conditions and subjects [e.g. humans, bats, virus and other living entities], so whatever that is objective must be ultimately and fundamentally subjective to subjects.

I recognized and agree with empirical, scientific, legal, moral, sports, etc. objectivity, but such objectivity is only valid as conditioned and subjected to their defined Framework and System, rules and criteria.

Repeat, why you are so narrow and closed-minded and confined to pure objectivity only is due to a psychological compulsion via a desperate existential crisis.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

Prismatic567 wrote:I recognized and agree with empirical, scientific, legal, moral, sports, etc. objectivity, but such objectivity is only valid as conditioned and subjected to their defined Framework and System, rules and criteria.Repeat, why you are so narrow and closed-minded and confined to pure objectivity only is due to a psychological compulsion via a desperate existential crisis.

The scientific framework is an empirical epistemology that attempts to account for human bias and subjectivity, It's "arbitrary" only in the sense that it's possible to have a different epistemology, a different framework.Yet no "alternative" as of yet has been able to produce an account of the reality we experience with as much detail and predictive power... and yes it's the reality we experience and therefore subjective, but that subjective experience is best characterised as being in contact with an objective reality.

It's a psychological compulsion, in the same way it's a psychological compulsion not to jump off a cliff... because while pretentious thinkers can postulate it's all relative and arbitrary... you know you're going to fall and die if you do.

No amount of jibber-jabber about the virtues of being open-minded will help you here.Skepticism is best used as a tool, not a rule... it allows us to compare established ideas with new ones and pick the better.You have as of yet not produced any "better" ideas... and even if you did, it would not be best received with an open-mind, but with scrutiny and careful examination.

What's really frustrating about this exchange, is how you're using these terms to make your argument.

Nobody disagrees that otherness is existence.

That's an objective truth.

But then you come along and state that NON-PERCIEVING extistents are also subjective because the fact that existence is otherness is subjective.

What are non-perceiving existents?

We cannot comprehend abstract existence, but that is not itself an objective/abstract claim because it's reliant on there being a knower and a known. I'm not talking about existence, but conceptions of existence. Perhaps there is an abstract existence, but it's not anything I could possibly conceptualize, much less talk about.

When you generalize about all of us, we other humans and you, (knowers and a known, subjects and perceptions, what all of our thoughts are like)aren't you talking about things that are not part of you experience? How do you know others are like you? That their experience, perception is like yours?

I understand you can explain about how you experience them, but it seems like when you universalize about experiencing you are doing precisely what you say above you cannot possibly do.

Subjectivism can refute objectivism, but not without refuting itself in the process, so they've both been refuted.The solution is just to go with whatever appears reasonable, intuitive/sensible, without thinking about it too much, or thinking about thinking itself.To fully or partly dispense with epistemology.

Subjectivism can refute objectivism, but not without refuting itself in the process, so they've both been refuted.The solution is just to go with whatever appears reasonable, intuitive/sensible, without thinking about it too much, or thinking about thinking itself.To fully or partly dispense with epistemology.

Subjectivism works the same as false in the truth tables:

It's true that it's true (it's objective that it's objective)

It's true that it's false (it's objective that it's subjective)

It's false that it's true (it's subjective that it's objective)

It's false that it's false (it's subjective that it's subjective)

Number 1 and 4 both solve as objective.

Number 2 solves as objectivity existing so that it's self contradictory.

Number 3 is what all the subjectivists are arguing (it's subjective that it's objective)

The truth table is 3 out of 4

So ... 1 out of 4 is not the ONLY and NECESSARY one that's true to the exclusion of the others ...

3 out of 4 Beats 1 out of 4, by vote, objectivity wins.

You can't make the argument that 1 of 4 of those refutes the other three.

Prismatic567 wrote:I recognized and agree with empirical, scientific, legal, moral, sports, etc. objectivity, but such objectivity is only valid as conditioned and subjected to their defined Framework and System, rules and criteria.Repeat, why you are so narrow and closed-minded and confined to pure objectivity only is due to a psychological compulsion via a desperate existential crisis.

The scientific framework is an empirical epistemology that attempts to account for human bias and subjectivity, It's "arbitrary" only in the sense that it's possible to have a different epistemology, a different framework.Yet no "alternative" as of yet has been able to produce an account of the reality we experience with as much detail and predictive power... and yes it's the reality we experience and therefore subjective, but that subjective experience is best characterised as being in contact with an objective reality.

It's a psychological compulsion, in the same way it's a psychological compulsion not to jump off a cliff... because while pretentious thinkers can postulate it's all relative and arbitrary... you know you're going to fall and die if you do.

No amount of jibber-jabber about the virtues of being open-minded will help you here.Skepticism is best used as a tool, not a rule... it allows us to compare established ideas with new ones and pick the better.You have as of yet not produced any "better" ideas... and even if you did, it would not be best received with an open-mind, but with scrutiny and careful examination.

Mad Man P:but that subjective experience is best characterised as being in contact with an objective reality.

If I put a 'table' in front of both of us among a crowd of 100++, yes there is an empirical table as observed.However, within the philosophical perspective, show me the argument and justification there is a real objective 'table' out there.

Note Russell's "perhaps there is no table at all"

Bertrand Russell wrote:Before we go farther it will be well to consider for a moment what it is that we have discovered so far. It has appeared that, if we take any common object of the sort that is supposed to be known by the senses, what the senses immediately tell us is not the truth about the object as it is apart from us, but only the truth about certain sense-data which, so far as we can see, depend upon the relations between us and the object.

Thus what we directly see and feel is merely 'appearance', which we believe to be a sign of some 'reality' behind. But if the reality is not what appears, have we any means of knowing whether there is any reality at all? And if so, have we any means of finding out what it is like?

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true. Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities.

The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture. Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.

Problem of Philosophy - Chapter 1

I wonder you understand what Russell was arguing about?Russell was doubting perhaps there is no objective table at all!

Can you counter Russell's argument?

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

Subjectivism can refute objectivism, but not without refuting itself in the process, so they've both been refuted.The solution is just to go with whatever appears reasonable, intuitive/sensible, without thinking about it too much, or thinking about thinking itself.To fully or partly dispense with epistemology.

Subjectivism works the same as false in the truth tables:

It's true that it's true (it's objective that it's objective)

It's true that it's false (it's objective that it's subjective)

It's false that it's true (it's subjective that it's objective)

It's false that it's false (it's subjective that it's subjective)

Number 1 and 4 both solve as objective.

Number 2 solves as objectivity existing so that it's self contradictory.

Number 3 is what all the subjectivists are arguing (it's subjective that it's objective)

The truth table is 3 out of 4

So ... 1 out of 4 is not the ONLY and NECESSARY one that's true to the exclusion of the others ...

3 out of 4 Beats 1 out of 4, by vote, objectivity wins.

You can't make the argument that 1 of 4 of those refutes the other three.

It seems like you assume that subjective is false. Subjective need not be false. It could even be argued that it's a category error to put subjectivity on a true false spectrum. Qualia, for example, are neither true nor false, but one could use qualia to reach false or true conclusions. I saw a red flash so I conclude there was a cardinal that flew past. The cardinals redness is a qualia, but it is a consistant one, so the conclusion could be correct - for those who believe in objectivity. Or it could be false, perhaps I had just pressed my eyes with my hands and the redness was a phosphene. And there are other possible ways it could have been a false conclusion in part or completely due to subjective aspects.

The point of the schema is that it wins for objectivity 3 out of 4 times. Sure, it's subjective that it's objective that a cardinal flew by, however it's objective that someone thought that in the first place, if infact, someone did think that about a red flash.

Which raises another issue:

Sure interpretation MIGHT be subjective, but whether hallucinating or mistaken, whatever occurs in the sensory field is objectively the case for the subject.

This is why we keep going in circles here...

And why it's consistently pointed out for example that people drink water (if they can) in order to not die of dehydration within a couple weeks.

There's no room in a subjectivists stance to explain this type of behavior.

Ecmandu wrote:The point of the schema is that it wins for objectivity 3 out of 4 times. Sure, it's subjective that it's objective that a cardinal flew by, however it's objective that someone thought that in the first place, if infact, someone did think that about a red flash.

Which raises another issue:

Sure interpretation MIGHT be subjective, but whether hallucinating or mistaken, whatever occurs in the sensory field is objectively the case for the subject.

This is why we keep going in circles here...

And why it's consistently pointed out for example that people drink water (if they can) in order to not die of dehydration within a couple weeks.

There's no room in a subjectivists stance to explain this type of behavior.

I agree that what we experience is real, these are phenomena that exist. Our experiencing exists. And this experiencing also gives us knowledge about things we are not experiencing. At least I find that model fucking useful. I haven't read all your posts reacting to the subjectivists, but it seems to me some of them are using the term subjective to mean that what one is talking about is radically affecting by us. What are we, we are primate-like creature, with senses that work in these particular ways, with these filters and limits. We are time bound creatures and exist in specific locations. IOW we experience things unfolding through time, we experience them from a specific here and not there, and not from all angles. So everything is (partially or also) subjective. Honestly I can't get a handle on what someone like Serendipper is saying. Sometimes he seems to be saying that our experience will always have qualities peculiar to us (our filters and vantage, including ones at a metaphysical level, like time and space restrictions) but then at other times he seems to be using it to mean we cannot know anything about anything beyond our experiences, presumably in the moment. The bedroom disappears when I walk into the living room, or perhaps, we have no idea about what happens outside our experience, in any case. I don't think for example, Serendipper and Sillouette are saying the same things as each other when they say it's all subjective or even if the former is consistant at all. To me the categories are not mutually exclusive. That there can be aspects of both to an event. That experience is connected to objects external to me and can give me information that is not only useful in the direction of universally but also says something about that thing. But my experiencing, description, and knowledge will be tinged by the makeup of my particular soul and body/senses.

But for Serendipper it seems to be binary, that since there are subjective aspects, it is subjective period.

Which then becomes weird because he describes what ALL OF US EXPERIENCE AND KNOW as being subjective. But then that's him giving objective knowledge about my experience - which he cannot experience (in his model of reality), and other people are parts of external reality. But he seems very confident making objecitve-like statements about them. Or he makes a distinction between his experiencing (head not in the sand) and that of republicans (head in the sand) that seems to mean he is in better contact with external reality,w ith the objects, that he is objective while they are emotional.exI feel like there is a lot of talking at cross purposed mixed in with what seem to also be some real confusions and false dichotomies. I can't even sort exactly what they are trying to assert.

Prismatic567 wrote:If I put a 'table' in front of both of us among a crowd of 100++, yes there is an empirical table as observed.However, within the philosophical perspective, show me the argument and justification there is a real objective 'table' out there.

1. There appears to be a table "out there"... 2. if we act as though there is a table "out there" we won't accidentally bump into it3. It comes and goes from "in here", the table being "out there" solves the mystery of where it comes from and where it goes.4. the table being "out there" is congruent with everything else that happens...

The list goes on and on...

Now provide me with a good reason why we should doubt it... I know we CAN doubt it... meaning we lack omniscience and therefore certainty... But can you give me a good reason why we SHOULD doubt it?

doubt does indeed suggest there is no table... but why should we listen to doubt above all other voices in this case or in any case?

Prismatic567 wrote:If I put a 'table' in front of both of us among a crowd of 100++, yes there is an empirical table as observed.However, within the philosophical perspective, show me the argument and justification there is a real objective 'table' out there.

1. There appears to be a table "out there"... 2. if we act as though there is a table "out there" we won't accidentally bump into it3. It comes and goes from "in here", the table being "out there" solves the mystery of where it comes from and where it goes.4. the table being "out there" is congruent with everything else that happens...

The list goes on and on...

Now provide me with a good reason why we should doubt it... I know we CAN doubt it... meaning we lack omniscience and therefore certainty... But can you give me a good reason why we SHOULD doubt it?

doubt does indeed suggest there is no table... but why should we listen to doubt above all other voices in this case or in any case?

I think one could add in an argument from parsimony. As long as one is not arguing with a solipsist, and Prismatic is not one, then to think of a single cause of these experiences that different individuals/minds have is more parsimonious than thinking that there is nothing out there that is a table, but for some reason a variety of minds get (separate, a number of) stimulations as if there was. I think Occam's R could come in and say, well, let's take the simplest explanation.

This puts the onus on Prismatic to explain how actually his model has less or an equal number of entities (causes of the experiences of the different minds).

Prismatic567 wrote:If I put a table in front of both of us among a crowd of 100 + yes there is an empirical table as observedHowever within the philosophical perspective show me the argument and justification there is a real objective table out there

The out there is every bit as real as the in here so anything you perceive must by logical deduction exist in reality as wellA Gods Eye View would not make any distinction between you and the table for it would accept both as being equally real

Prismatic567 wrote:If I put a table in front of both of us among a crowd of 100 + yes there is an empirical table as observedHowever within the philosophical perspective show me the argument and justification there is a real objective table out there

The out there is every bit as real as the in here so anything you perceive must by logical deduction exist in reality as wellA Gods Eye View would not make any distinction between you and the table for it would accept both as being equally real

Not just equally real, but exactly the same in every way ... that's why we know god isn't possible.

There is more than one single definition of God because he can be absolutely anything that anyone imagines him to beSo a God for whom everything is exactly the same is no more plausible than one for whom nothing is exactly the same

surreptitious75 wrote:There is more than one single definition of God because he can be absolutely anything that anyone imagines him to beSo a God for whom everything is exactly the same is no more plausible than one for whom nothing is exactly the same

It is a law of existence that existence = otherness.

It is the definition of omnipresence that there is no otherness, if god is exactly all of us, we would all exactly be god.

God does not have to be omnipresent - that is just a characteristic he is traditionally given - it is completely arbitraryExactly the same as the other ones - omniscience and omnibenelovence - but God can be anything you want him to be

But yes you are absolutely correct - existence is otherness because there is no omnipresent GodThe only thing that is actually omnipresent is the Universe but the Universe however is not God

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I think one could add in an argument from parsimony. As long as one is not arguing with a solipsist, and Prismatic is not one, then to think of a single cause of these experiences that different individuals/minds have is more parsimonious than thinking that there is nothing out there that is a table, but for some reason a variety of minds get (separate, a number of) stimulations as if there was. I think Occam's R could come in and say, well, let's take the simplest explanation.

Our situation is slightly more sinister than that, which I tried to allude to earlier...We're confronted with a reality of qualitative experience, that is to say a reality that can harm us, terribly.Mistakes can cost us dearly... and frivolous beliefs are no more dangerous than doubts as we move through this space.

If you walked off the edge of a cliff, doubting you would fall, the price for that mistake can be as high as any...

The project is to construct a road map, a modus operandi, that lets us navigate this reality, whatever it may be, more effectively.We cannot be parsimonious in the construction of that road map unless we know what is necessary and what is not.So how can we know when we lack certainty?

And that's where rationalists get stuck (sans a benevolent god). Conceptually it's a dead end... But the empiricists don't give a damn about any of that... and merrily forge forward as warranted by the experiential evidence, claiming to know stuff in one moment that in the next they claim to have disproven. Much to the chagrin of rationalists who berate them for it, all while they employ the road map the empiricists provide them.

The subject comes and goes in response to the things that are happening around. It is the objects that create the subject. For example, if there is no light, you have no way of looking at anything. When light falls on an “object,” the refection of that light activates the optic nerve. That in its turn activates the memory cells. When once the memory cells are activated, all the knowledge you have about it comes into operation. So, it is that which is happening there that has created the subject which is the knowledge.

Your constant utilization of thought to give continuity to your separate self is 'you'. There is nothing there inside you other than that.

Mad Man P wrote:Our situation is slightly more sinister than that, which I tried to allude to earlier...We're confronted with a reality of qualitative experience, that is to say a reality that can harm us, terribly.Mistakes can cost us dearly... and frivolous beliefs are no more dangerous than doubts as we move through this space.

Sure. We have to assume stuff. WE have to take the advice and ideas of experts. We also have to doubt experts. I actually don't think - referring ina sense to what you write below - one can manage without both rationalism or empiricism or finding ways to hone our intuition. No one likes to admit, it seems, that one must rely on intuition and cannot avoid it, but they all do.

If you walked off the edge of a cliff, doubting you would fall, the price for that mistake can be as high as any...

Sure, not quite sure how this is more sinister than what I said. I wasn't saying it was sinister, I was presenting a neutral argument. So this isn't more sinister, but focusing on dangerous aspects of our situation and what can happen if one denies realism. But the truth is everyone believes in the power of cliffs to kill them. They cannot simply decide not to believe in them unless they are on hallucinogens or psychotic. So we really don't know what the power of belief is, but you gotta go a hellava lot deeper down to actually shift beliefs.

The project is to construct a road map, a modus operandi, that lets us navigate this reality, whatever it may be, more effectively.We cannot be parsimonious in the construction of that road map unless we know what is necessary and what is not.So how can we know when we lack certainty?

I think it's better to say, How can be develop a servicable map when we lack certainty and how can we continue to improve it.

And that's where rationalists get stuck (sans a benevolent god). Conceptually it's a dead end...

Taken in a broad sense we are all rationalists and we all appeal rely on authority. We simply cannot be empiricists for all the decisions we make.

But the empiricists don't give a damn about any of that... and merrily forge forward as warranted by the experiential evidence, claiming to know stuff in one moment that in the next they claim to have disproven.

That's fine as far as I am concerned, if only the humans in that camp understood that it was possible instead of giving it lip service. They treat anything that consensus science has not verified as false. They seem to have no option of agnositicism and no memory of the history of science.

They also do not understand that scientific models are nto the same as research data. Nor do they understand that science has metaphysics and this can be wrong also, so the way they look at anomolies is pathological. And interpersonally, they are very damaging, especially as a group. They are holding back knowledge because they think their models (that is metaphysics) rules this knowledge out. They are just another religion that also does empirical research within their models.

Much to the chagrin of rationalists who berate them for it, all while they employ the road map the empiricists provide them.

[/quote]Sure, but the empiricists are also using rationalism. Like - the universe has natural laws, for example. Sheldrake called them out for that, and got called a nutcase, though in the last decades research is now showing that things we considered laws and constants are not that. They constantly use deduction from models to rule out things, not understanding that their models have changed metaphors and paradigms in ways that not even Kuhn wanted to look at. And there is still this very harsh male mental rage guiding the communities reaction to anything that smacks to the scientists and their groupies as religious, spiritual and emotional. Couple them with the technocrats controlled by the corporations and you have some really pernicious real life changes happening worldwide by these supposedly rational people.

surreptitious75 wrote:God does not have to be omnipresent - that is just a characteristic he is traditionally given - it is completely arbitraryExactly the same as the other ones - omniscience and omnibenelovence - but God can be anything you want him to be

But yes you are absolutely correct - existence is otherness because there is no omnipresent GodThe only thing that is actually omnipresent is the Universe but the Universe however is not God

As I stated earlier, neither can the universe be omnipresent, that's why it's now called a multiverse.